I've been using the Display2 for a couple of days now on both a Sony CRT and a Sharp DLP front projector. I'm very impressed with this meter. The results are VERY close to what I get with the EyeOne Pro and measurably better than what I get from the Spyder2.

Yes, I know because I asked them. They don't and they have no plans to. Big mistake IMHO.

That's unfortunate. I'm still using the Trichromat-1 sensor, which has worked very well for me. I was thinking about picking up a Spyder2 as a backup (I can get one from Costco fairly cheap), but the reviews of this meter are a bit mixed.

Apparently there is a Gretag-Macbeth and Pantone version using the same HW but different software. I use basiCColor for software now anyways though and the results have been much better than with Eye One Match.

I'm noticing and measuring the diffusor absorbs green and blue more than red therefore once calibrated for the final image is shifted towards cyan. At least with the Display LT I purchased it would appear the diffusor is not completely linear in it's diffusing and the end result color shift is not what I would consider subtle either.

I decided to do some more formal testing. What I discovered was interesting. There was more deviation between the Display2 taking measurements of the screen and directly from the lamp with the diffuser installed than there was between the Eye One Pro and the Display2, both taking measurements off the screen.

Based on these results, it seems as though the off-screen mode is preferable. The diffuser seems to have a problem with red at high IRE to the extent that I would think a calibration in this mode would yield visibly different results than from using the meter off the screen.

Even more surprising is how close the Display2 and Eye One Pro spectroradiometer are in performance. Between 20-100 IRE the Display2 reads slightly less red at 100 IRE, but I doubt that the difference between the calibrations would be visible. With respect to chromaticity, the area of traditional strength of spectroradiometers, there is a small difference in green and blue. Again, I seriously doubt whether these differences would be visible.

This confirms my earlier assessment that this is a very impressive inexpensive meter. I'd also like to mention that CalMan is a great tool, especially for the price. When they release version 3, which will be a standalone application that can take real-time measurements, I may end up retiring ColorFacts.

Based on these results, it seems as though the off-screen mode is preferable. The diffuser seems to filter out enough red that I would think a calibration in this mode would yield visibly different results than from using the meter off the screen.

Hugh2 has hit upon the question that comes to my mind. Have you tried the Pro in ambient mode? I would be curious whether the difference is due to a slight color shift from the screen. Both look like fairly tight results, though.

EDIT: This is with the i1 Pro monitor that does not do the ambient mode, right? If so, then we'll add this to our never-ending series of tests to do in-house. I've done pieces of this using multiple measures over several hours, but never to test the linearity of the included diffusers. I'll be working up a DIY diffuser for comparison using higher-grade glass.

Quote:

This confirms my earlier assessment that this is a very impressive inexpensive meter. I'd also like to mention that CalMan is a great tool, especially for the price. When they release version 3, which will be a standalone application that can take real-time measurements, I may end up retiring ColorFacts.

I've tested my Display LT with and without the diffusor facing both a black-out cloth screen with a gain of about .9 and on Da-lites High Power screen. The sensor postion remained unchanged throughout the test. The projector is a UHP lamp, RGBRGB wheeled Infocus SP4805 DLP projector.

For reference I've calibrated best I could the sensor with diffusor onto the black out cloth screen, the other tests are all relative to this reference.

What I previously described as a green/blue issue now appears to be solely a blue issue. I can not draw any conclusions as to which is more accurate as I have no objective reference so I'll leave that up to others who can compare with sensors known to be relatively accurate. I can conclude, however, that there is a measureable and relevant difference between using the sensor with or without the diffusor and that the high power screen was not the cause of the shift I noted earlier, this screen actually has a slight red push.

I should add that somewhat contrary to my previous impression turning the diffused sensor towards the projector did not changed the readings. A non diffused sensor aimed at the projector showed a remarkable change compared to the same sans diffused sensor aimed at the screen, the result so scewed, or screwed, that I'll go out on a limb and eliminate that sensor scenerio as accurate.

That's what I originally believed the diffusor should be used for but there's been conflicting info how of this implementation working for facing the screen.

Now I'm confused too, didn't you use the sensor with diffusor facing the screen?

Hmmmm, I just re-read your post and I've obviously misinterpreted how you employed the diffusor

You said...

"There was more deviation between the Display2 taking measurements of the screen and directly from the lamp with the diffuser installed"

Thought you used it for both facing the PJ and screen, my mistake. At least we came to the same conclusion.

I will add that if the diffusor is not linear, which appears to be the case (yours filters red mine blue), then readings facing the PJ are corrupt as well.

A diffusor can help mitigate some aiming error in taking measurements either in direct or reflective modes, but the primary use for them is to correct for the difference between reflected vs. direct light ("cosine corrector"). As a result, meters require multiple internal calibration tables to use them properly. Since xy is not a linear colorspace, it is hard to judge the linearity of a meter's response using xy-based color. Instead, you may want to try testing your diffuser using CIE-Luv space, and you may also want to wait for the HCFR team to support the diffuser modes formally (theoretically v1.22) to maximize the accuracy of the data feeding the analysis.

My initial tests intrigued me, so I decided to take a look at two other low-cost meters, the Milori Trichomat (Sequel Imaging Chroma IV) and the Spyder2. Since I don't have a license for the Spyder2 for CalMan and it doesn't support the trichomat in any case, I used ColorFacts.

Again, the results were surprising and quite revealing. First, neither of these meters have a diffuser, so the user is free to use them either pointed at the screen or directly towards the lamp. I quickly discovered that the meters behave differently in this regard. The trichomat did not yield good results when pointed towards the screen, so it should always be used in the direct reading mode. The Spyder2 was the opposite. It worked better when taking readings off the screen. Odd.

You can use my earlier readings from the EyeOne Pro and Display2 as a reference.

Trichomat gray scale reading

Trichomat chromaticity

Spyder2 gray scale

Spyder2 chromaticity

As you can see, the trichomat, though not as accurate as the Display2, does a reasonably good job when pointing directly at the lamp. The Spyder2, on the other hand, is not very accurate. Based on earlier testing, I determined that the trichomat does a better job than the Spyder2 with CRTs.

All in all, I can't recommend the Spyder2. The Display2, especially the LT version, is very inexpensive and performs much better. In fact, at least with a DLP projector it performs essentially the same as the much more expensive EyeOne Pro spectroradiometer.

Has anyone looked at the accuracy of the Display2 against some of the newer LED DLP solutions? Are any of the inexpensive meter solutions doable, or does one really need the more expensive i1 pro to use against some of the newer display technologies?

Actually, the Spyder has a diffuser underneath the polarizing filter. This layering of filters is most likely why the D2 feels more accurate/"snappier" at low light levels than the Spyder does, since there is less attenuation of the signal before it reaches the diodes.

As for the Trichromat, we should also be able to support it at some point after v3 launches if there is demand for us to do so (it would be in the Pro bundle).

We currently sell the Progressive Labs software package with the new C-5 probe which is an enhanced version of the Display 2 providing a more linear detector response. The C-5 comes supplied with a bayonnet mounted diffuser used when measuring FPTV with the probe oriented towards the lens. The diffuser may be removed and used with the standard suction cup accesory for direct contact measurement of emissive displays including LCD flat panels.

The C-5 is supplied exclusively by Progressive Labs with three (3) calibration matrices one for direct contact measurement applications, a second calibration exclusively for LCD flat panel displays, and the third for calibration of FPTV when using the diffuser. It is important to note that the FPTV calibration is performed with the diffuser in place as the Display 2 does not provide a calibration performed with the diffuser from the factory! This makes a significant difference in xy measured data as the diffuser material does impart a chromaticity shift.

For more information contact Progressive Labs at 212-254-3541. Information on the new software package and C-5 probe will be listed on our website by the weekend.